5 ms·

> However, medical devices, especially for life support systems, are not a Hackathon project. This effort they're doing really doesn't seem like they're treati

> However, medical devices, especially for life support systems, are not a Hackathon project. This effort they're doing really doesn't seem like they're treating it like a "Hackathon" project. They're putting real engineering resources behind it. Whether or not they can produce something in time is still up in the air, but it seems to me Musk is attacking the problem from several different angles and hoping something works: he's purchased off the shelf BIPAP equipment and donated it (which turns out to not be as useful as hoped), he's got engineers homegrowing what appears to be a legit ventilator that may or may not get to volume production and/or certification in time, and he's helping established ventilator manufacturers with some of their manufacturing bottlenecks. All three of these approaches are unlikely to be fruitful, but at a time when we're desperate and looking for quick innovation, it seems strange to dismiss people with the resources to try.

rumanator 7y ago
> This effort they're doing really doesn't seem like they're treating it like a "Hackathon" project. They're putting real engineering resources behind it. Engineers can and do hackathon work, but real engineering work is way more about verification and validation than hacking stuff together. Products need to ensure that they will work reliably within all operational limits. You don't ensure that with an all nighter and a 3D printer. That's one of the main reason why software development is not recognized as an engineering field. Verification and validation are the bread and butter, because if that culture doesn't exist and if these efforts don't happen then people die.
- heleninboodler 7y ago
  > You don't ensure that with an all nighter and a 3D printer. Does the video linked look like the result of "an all nighter and a 3D printer" to you?
  - viklove 7y ago
    Seeing as the engineers all touched their faces multiple times during the video (fidgeting with their poorly-fitted masks), I think it's safe to assume they know little to nothing about medical care, and this ventilator looks cool but will have no real world usefulness.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > Does the video linked look like the result of "an all nighter and a 3D printer" to you? As you might understand from the language used and your failure to see a 3D printer, my description is what you may describe as a hyperbole. But still, to put it in terms you might better understand, why do you think that medical devices take years to design and develop and get to the market? There are more things to it other than the old tinfoil stories.
    - HideousKojima 7y ago
      >But still, to put it in terms you might better understand, why do you think that medical devices take years to design and develop and get to the market? Because of insane regulatory hurdles, and a refusal to adopt standards accepted by other nations' comparable regulatory agencies? See, for example, KN95 masks. Or for a non-coronavirus example, look at how slow the FDA has been to approve SLIT immunotherapy methods for allergy treatment, despite European agencies having approved them for decades. Which results in Americans seeking allergy immunotherapy to either get off-label prescriptions for SLIT therapy, or they have to get the much more expensive injections that require multiple visits a week to a doctor's office and supervision by trained (and therefore expensive) professionals.
      - ardy42 7y ago
        > See, for example, KN95 masks. IIRC, the issue with KN95 respirators is not the standard itself, but a massive problem with not-up-to-spec counterfeits being offered on the market.
    - heleninboodler 7y ago
      This sounds a little like an argument that it's simply impossible to get this done any faster, so we shouldn't try. I mean, I like to think we have clear enough standards for reliability and testing that if we manage to perform some excellent engineering and meet all of those standards in record time, and the federal government is willing to expedite the approval red tape, there's no technical reason we shouldn't be able to get it done a lot faster than what is typical without sacrificing safety. Or put another way: I really hope the safety of our existing medical devices isn't simply based on the process being slow.
  - vernie 7y ago
    Yea, it does, right down to the graph visualization that doesn't fill the screen.
- wjnc 7y ago
  With hospitals in first world countries to larger or smaller extent already using 3D-printers to strengthen faltering supply lines I think the distinction is not so clear. Let a thousand flowers bloom and the doctors decide what they want to use. They can make the best tradeoffs.
- xkjkls 7y ago
  And you need a rigorous process to insure they can be actually manufactured to specifications at scale. Which is why medical devices require so many layers of approval.

rumanator 7y ago

> This effort they're doing really doesn't seem like they're treating it like a "Hackathon" project. They're putting real engineering resources behind it. Engineers can and do hackathon work, but real engineering work is way more about verification and validation than hacking stuff together. Products need to ensure that they will work reliably within all operational limits. You don't ensure that with an all nighter and a 3D printer. That's one of the main reason why software development is not recognized as an engineering field. Verification and validation are the bread and butter, because if that culture doesn't exist and if these efforts don't happen then people die.

heleninboodler 7y ago
> You don't ensure that with an all nighter and a 3D printer. Does the video linked look like the result of "an all nighter and a 3D printer" to you?
- viklove 7y ago
  Seeing as the engineers all touched their faces multiple times during the video (fidgeting with their poorly-fitted masks), I think it's safe to assume they know little to nothing about medical care, and this ventilator looks cool but will have no real world usefulness.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Does the video linked look like the result of "an all nighter and a 3D printer" to you? As you might understand from the language used and your failure to see a 3D printer, my description is what you may describe as a hyperbole. But still, to put it in terms you might better understand, why do you think that medical devices take years to design and develop and get to the market? There are more things to it other than the old tinfoil stories.
  - HideousKojima 7y ago
    >But still, to put it in terms you might better understand, why do you think that medical devices take years to design and develop and get to the market? Because of insane regulatory hurdles, and a refusal to adopt standards accepted by other nations' comparable regulatory agencies? See, for example, KN95 masks. Or for a non-coronavirus example, look at how slow the FDA has been to approve SLIT immunotherapy methods for allergy treatment, despite European agencies having approved them for decades. Which results in Americans seeking allergy immunotherapy to either get off-label prescriptions for SLIT therapy, or they have to get the much more expensive injections that require multiple visits a week to a doctor's office and supervision by trained (and therefore expensive) professionals.
    - ardy42 7y ago
      > See, for example, KN95 masks. IIRC, the issue with KN95 respirators is not the standard itself, but a massive problem with not-up-to-spec counterfeits being offered on the market.
  - heleninboodler 7y ago
    This sounds a little like an argument that it's simply impossible to get this done any faster, so we shouldn't try. I mean, I like to think we have clear enough standards for reliability and testing that if we manage to perform some excellent engineering and meet all of those standards in record time, and the federal government is willing to expedite the approval red tape, there's no technical reason we shouldn't be able to get it done a lot faster than what is typical without sacrificing safety. Or put another way: I really hope the safety of our existing medical devices isn't simply based on the process being slow.
- vernie 7y ago
  Yea, it does, right down to the graph visualization that doesn't fill the screen.
wjnc 7y ago
With hospitals in first world countries to larger or smaller extent already using 3D-printers to strengthen faltering supply lines I think the distinction is not so clear. Let a thousand flowers bloom and the doctors decide what they want to use. They can make the best tradeoffs.
xkjkls 7y ago
And you need a rigorous process to insure they can be actually manufactured to specifications at scale. Which is why medical devices require so many layers of approval.